Generally, the times when I don't write anything here are the times when I am busy, or at least, involved in projects which take up most of my spare 'head space'. This last month has been no exception to that rule.
We (my occupational psychologist and myself) have been working on several new programs for our analytical suite. The one on which I seem to have spent the most time is a variant on an already existing program: the examinee is presented with a list of adjectives which describe a person (warm, caring, methodical, arrogant, etc) from which s/he is supposed to choose those which describe him/herself. A diagnostic is made from the adjectives chosen.
This time around we've improved several aspects of the program. I was never enthused with the user interface which presented 300 adjectives sorted alphabetically on a pair of components called TPageControl and TTabSheet.The program had to ensure that the user visited all six tab sheets before collating the adjectives chosen, from which the user had then to pick the ten adjectives which most described him/her. The adjectives themselves seemed to be picked at random, and there were several synonyms as well as opposites. The interpretation seemed to be unscientific.
The first task in creating an improved version was to winnow the list of adjectives, eliminating synonyms as far as possible and making the whole thing more stream-lined. The second task was to adopt an approach suggested by another psychologist, who divided personalities up into four groups (this is hardly a radical idea); everyone has elements of these four groups in their make-up, some more dominant and some less so. So from four groups are developed sixteen subgroups, which differ in the order of the various bases. To each of these sixteen subgroups are assigned the various adjectives; the idea is that we can quantify a person's responses according to which subgroup has the most adjectives chosen.
In terms of user interface, the program was completely rewritten. Instead of the clumsy existing interface, I designed a program (influenced by Internet exams) which displays screens of five adjectives, each displayed in what's called a radio group. The user can choose either "Describes me", "Doesn't describe me" or "Don't know" for each word, and of course cannot progress in the exam until marking all five adjectives. This is a bit long-winded as there are now just under 200 adjectives, but is very thorough.
All this work on personality describing programs has made me more aware of some of the personalities at work (aka 'the day job'). Unfortunately we have been having personnel upheavals at work, partially due to the economic situation, and lately I have been seconded (without my knowledge) for a few days a week to a manager whose style leaves something to be desired.
With all the psychological training which I am absorbing by osmosis, it's very easy to categorise this manager: very much an alpha male, very dominant, "my way or the highway", etc. Whilst he does have good ideas, they tend not to be compatible with an ERP system, and it's my job to try and fit those ideas, or business practices, into the confines of the ERP system. He runs a furniture (wood) factory, which tends not to sell standard items (such as Ikea) but items personalised according to a customer's needs, and of course such items are much more difficult to run via ERP. That's not to say that it's impossible, but simply more difficult.
I don't really want to go into detail about how the ERP system is run (or not), just to say how non-standard it has become. Due to the economic problems, the senior management wants more control or knowledge about what is happening in this factory (Are our orders profitable? Stock control? Export costs?), and the non-use of the ERP system has made such questions difficult to answer. Hence my seconding to try and improve things.
I, however, was ignorant of the senior management's desires, and so the first two meetings with this manager and his cowed team have ended in frustration, anger and insult. In the book "The soul of a new machine", there is reference made to the process of "signing up", ie getting people to work hard on something because they want to. In my after-hours job as a programmer and assistant psychologist, I signed up long ago, and my employer knows how to motivate me so that she can get better programs. When this sort of thing works, there is definitely a process of synergy.
As opposed to this, the manager of the furniture factory does not know how to sign people up, and manages mainly to get work from his people by threatening, shouting and doing the work himself. This approach does not work well with me, hence the anger and frustration. In desperation, I approached the senior manager who is responsible for the computer department, and poured all my frustration out. Whether deliberate or not, she does know how to sign people up, for at the end of the meeting I found myself agreeing to doing what had been demanded of me.